Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-tucson-arizona)

The Tea Party promised to take America back from the clutches of commie Muslims, and they're doing it one step at a time; frontier justice-style baby. :mex1:
A US congresswoman was shot in the head at point blank range today at a public meeting outside a grocery shop in Arizona. The attacker was a gunman who hit up to a dozen other people at the constituency event before being restrained. Gabrielle Giffords, a 40-year-old Democratic member of the House of Representatives, was taken to hospital where she was last night undergoing surgery.

~~~~

Giffords's Tuscon constituency office was vandalised last March after she voted in favour of Barack Obama's controversial health bill, which has been bitterly opposed by the American right. Giffords had been named as a political campaign target for conservatives in November's elections by former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin for her strong support of Obama's reforms. Palin had published a "target map" on her website using images of gun sights to identify 20 House Democrats, including Giffords, for backing the new health care law. At an event in 2009 which was similar to the one Giffords was holding today, a protester was removed by police when his pistol fell to the supermarket floor.

You ain't going to find that ad on Palin's website now, as she's probably avoiding any implication of motivating/condoning a political assassination and/or terrorist attack. But just in case:

http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2011/01/Palinmap.jpg)

I'll leave you to draw the conclusions, friend-o. ;)

Add Palin to the list, and i'll be happy.

Pastramix: Thank you so much for preserving that.... this kinda stuff just "vaporizes" too often. A smoking gun is a smoking gun, or at least a gun sight.

@N5/Prudii - yup.

Can we go all Waco on the Teapartiers now, I'm getting really sick of this ****?

Can we go all Waco on the Teabaggers now, I'm getting really sick of this ****?
No offense, but that sort of mentality is why that congresswoman got shot in the first place.

Those "Teabaggers" are you fellow Americans. We are all Americans, America has no place for divided identity, and the sooner we all realize this the sooner our world will be a better place. For the sake of our country, let's all be "the better man".

Or should we just all point fingers and scream about whether someone has a "D" or an "R" after their name?

I'm going to withhold judgment on this issue until there's more information about it...I'm not into conspiracy theories.

Yes, just like the taxicab stabber was one of the tea party. Seems that every time one of the left's people gets attacked, they scream, "There's another Tea[partier] doing bad things" Then a few days later we find that the attacker was actually one of the leftists. Yet there has never been an apology from those leftists here who accused the right of being violent monsters. So far none of the violence that has been blamed on the Tea Party has actually been done by tea party members.

Oh and maybe, JUST MAYBE, before you go and accuse the righties, you might do a bit of research.

Jared Lee Loughner was at best, a nutjob. He talked of mind control and was pretty well rambling in his youtube videos. Oh and in case you bring up that he was against the takeover by the government, he also happens to like the US flag burning vid. Not exactly typical of the over the top nationalist right wingers.

Kay I was going to stop posting here just because tensions arise. But to this I just have to say something.

As a libertarian I have never been particularly a fan of Palin despite my rightward lean. Personally I abhor that she shoots wolves. Having had a 69-72% wolf hybrid myself, I can tell you it is not like having a dog. So she's on my ****-list for that.
Still this appears, at best, to be indirect influence. Until we have evidence of direct influence, the most that can be done to Palin is to shake a finger at her.

The shooter ought to be made to bear the full brunt of his responsibility for his own actions. Period.

I can foresee several issues coming up as a consequence of this:
-Reinforces the negative stereotype/image of our military. If you have had personal bad experience with military, then that's one thing and a little irrationality is allowed. (I may still press you on it, though.)

-This will get the anti-gun "We'll 'fix' the 2nd amendment" crowd in a frenzy again to ban guns or at least put more restrictive laws on them as well as a statist supervisory monitoring program by the government. You could get rid of all nukes and guns and some idiot/s would later accidentally re/discover how to make them (all over again).

-Censorship issues may come up. You may be (insert political lean/affiliation) wanting to shut up your opposite, but remember it'll eventually backfire because censorship cuts both directions.

It is sad that things had to come to this, today. Offering my condolences: My thoughts and prayers are with Gabrielle Giffords, the congresswoman. I hope yours are as well regardless your personal beliefs.

No offense, but that sort of mentality is why that congresswoman got shot in the first place.

Those "Teabaggers" are you fellow Americans. We are all Americans, America has no place for divided identity, and the sooner we all realize this the sooner our world will be a better place. For the sake of our country, let's all be "the better man".

Or should we just all point fingers and scream about whether someone has a "D" or an "R" after their name?
No it's not. We're talking about a bunch of reckless celebrity *******s (Beck, Palin, O'Reilly) who have spent the last 2 years whipping crazy people into a frenzy, and then acting like they have no responsibility when one of those people goes nuts. O'Reilly spent years calling George Tiller a murderer (No he wasn't) and then gets all quiet when some nutjob kills him. What this kind of **** has lead to is pretty similar to all the militia bull**** that went on back in the 90's, the problem now is everyone has the internet, and 24 hour propaganda broadcasts masquerading as news.

No it's not. We're talking about a bunch of reckless celebrity *******s (Beck, Palin, O'Reilly) who have spent the last 2 years whipping crazy people into a frenzy, and then acting like they have no responsibility when one of those people goes nuts. O'Reilly spent years calling George Tiller a murderer (No he wasn't) and then gets all quiet when some nutjob kills him. What this kind of **** has lead to is pretty similar to all the militia bull**** that went on back in the 90's, the problem now is everyone has the internet, and 24 hour propaganda broadcasts masquerading as news.

Ok, so if/when Sarah Palin ever eats a bullet, we should all hunt down the rabid Palin/Tea party haters at LF, Huffpo, MSNBC, etc... b/c of all the **** they've been posting? Makes as much sense as what you're advocating..... :rolleyes:

Before we start jumping to conclusions...
Caiti Parker, who knew the suspect in high school four years ago, described him as a loner and political radical who was left-wing or liberal at the time and obsessed with the 2012 phenomenon.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting)

And, though six others died in the attack, Giffords' surgery was a success and her surgeon expects her to recover.

I got that vibe when the media was obsessing about the subject yesterday and got to discussing the perp.

No it's not. We're talking about a bunch of reckless celebrity *******s (Beck, Palin, O'Reilly) who have spent the last 2 years whipping crazy people into a frenzy, and then acting like they have no responsibility when one of those people goes nuts. O'Reilly spent years calling George Tiller a murderer (No he wasn't) and then gets all quiet when some nutjob kills him. What this kind of **** has lead to is pretty similar to all the militia bull**** that went on back in the 90's, the problem now is everyone has the internet, and 24 hour propaganda broadcasts masquerading as news.

Post reminds me of the situation in Pakistan right now - a mass radicalisation of the youth via the mass media, passing right through the corrupt and ineffective government. Resulted in the governor of the Punjab province of the country being killed by one of his security guards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmaan_Taseer#Death), over a blasphemy law that he opposed.

Since Taseer's death, rather than being condemned, was celebrated by radicalised people across the country, it's pretty safe to say that Pakistan's heading down an anti-liberal, ultra-religious fundie path that may end up having serious consequences 20-30 years down the road.

Evil-Q: No fair hitting the Tea Party haters here with the truth. Only the Tea Party and Right wingers are willing to shoot people they oppose.

So this guy was a Liberal
So he was Left Wing.
He still must have had ties to the Tea party... somehow.
He also killed a judge that was appointed by George HW Bush.

This guy was anti-government. Giffords represented a part of that government to him. It could have been any congressperson and he would have shot them. He just happened to live in Tucson. Which just happened to be Congressional District 8. Which just happened to be Giffords District.

What's up with the title of this thread? She's not dead...she was actually communicating with the hospital staff today.

Because he made the thread when she was still in critical condition and assumed she would die

He probably should fix that then.

No fair hitting the Tea Party haters here with the truth. Only the Tea Party and Right wingers are willing to shoot people they oppose. No, but it is completely fair to compare liberals to unpatriotic flag burners. News for you I love my country just as much as anyone and while I hate to see the flag disrespected. I will fully defend someone’s right to burn it because of a little thing called the Constitution.

Until everyone figures out 1 + 2 does not equal 7 these debates are useless. Just because someone supports certain positions on the left or the right does not make someone a Republican or a Democrat. I should know, I once voted for Reagan and then again Bush, does that make me a Republican?

What's up with the title of this thread? She's not dead...she was actually communicating with the hospital staff today.For the first hours of reporting the shooting most news agencies labeled her as dead, which although was s***** reporting at the time, I guess they were somewhat correct in treating a headshot as a fatality. 90% of the time, a slug in the head means a kick of the bucket (Except in Fallout).

So this guy was a Liberal
So he was Left Wing.
He still must have had ties to the Tea party... somehow.
He also killed a judge that was appointed by George HW Bush.I fail to see your link between "anti-government" and "liberal". Any ideology could be anti-government, and by the suspect's proclivities concerning reading material, he wouldn't really fit any spectrum role nicely.

Do I think that he was influenced by the anti-government rhetoric being produced by the Tea Party, such as the Palin hit-list? Definitely. Does that make the shooter a bona-fide supporter of the Tea Party movement? Not exactly, but I'd certainly say that the movement should be responsible for its own rhetoric, including all of its complications, no matter how distant.

This guy was anti-government. Giffords represented a part of that government to him. It could have been any congressperson and he would have shot them. He just happened to live in Tucson. Which just happened to be Congressional District 8. Which just happened to be Giffords District.Funny; your previous list seems to imply some agenda-driven plot, rather than "just some anarchist-type". :raise:

I fail to see your link between "anti-government" and "liberal". Any ideology could be anti-government, and by the suspect's proclivities concerning reading material, he wouldn't really fit any spectrum role nicely.

Yeah, we pretty much spent a lot of the first decade of the 2000s with libs being anti-govt and the last few years with the other side being vs increased govt control.

Do I think that he was influenced by the anti-government rhetoric being produced by the Tea Party, such as the Palin hit-list? Definitely. Does that make the shooter a bona-fide supporter of the Tea Party movement? Not exactly, but I'd certainly say that the movement should be responsible for its own rhetoric, including all of its complications, no matter how distant.

Based on what exactly? If the authorities aren't yet clear about his motivations, where have you divined his influences from then? He could have easily been reading the huffpo for much of the last 10 years and decided the feds were getting out of control. I've yet to see the other side claim any responsibility for much of its own vile and negative rhetoric, nevermind what they accuse the tea partiers of doing.:raise:

No, but it is completely fair to compare liberals to unpatriotic flag burners. News for you I love my country just as much as anyone and while I hate to see the flag disrespected. I will fully defend someone’s right to burn it because of a little thing called the Constitution.

Until everyone figures out 1 + 2 does not equal 7 these debates are useless. Just because someone supports certain positions on the left or the right does not make someone a Republican or a Democrat. I should know, I once voted for Reagan and then again Bush, does that make me a Republican?

No, I was making a note of his liberal leanings which go further left than your average leftie. I'm making note of things which do not fit the mold of saying he was a tea partier.

And calling him a leftist/liberal comes from his classmates who know him better than you or I do. So I'd guess they know him enough to say whether he was left/right. Looking through his ramblings and reading list he could be classified as either. Actually you could say some of his ramblings are far rightist, while others are far leftist.

I don't call him either. I call him a nutjob. BUT Since some people here prefer to claim he's a Tea partier, I figured we ought to point out that his classmate says he was a liberal, not a conservative.

I figured we ought to point out that his classmate says he was a liberal, not a conservative.I would say most of my classmates would say I was a conservative and not a liberal because of my stance on the Constitution and finance. I doubt many any here would say the same.

Yes, but the difference is that at this point, we don't have an itemized list of his positions on a great many issues. And as you've pointed out, a stance on a specific thing does not make them Liberal/Conservative. Again, I'm not saying he was either. People who know him better than we do have called him Liberal. He was an anarchist, Critical of religion, Includes in his favorite books "The Communist Manifesto" Now tell me how many people here who include those three fall on the right side of the fence?

He's also made a point of posting his videos.Here (http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/u/0/7uRjwPWaxiY)
Which indicate to me that he is either a nutjob, or HEAVILY self medicating. Neither of which are specifically left or right. Though conservatives tend to be more anti-drug, as we've seen, some are hypocrites. Honestly this guy may have had serious mental problems. Schizophrenia would be my guess. Which again is not limited to left/right ideology. That in itself is the reason why I get so upset at people who point at this stuff and scream "TEA PARTIERS" every time. It's as if they are saying only the Right can have crazies.

No it's not. We're talking about a bunch of reckless celebrity *******s (Beck, Palin, O'Reilly) who have spent the last 2 years whipping crazy people into a frenzy, and then acting like they have no responsibility when one of those people goes nuts. O'Reilly spent years calling George Tiller a murderer (No he wasn't) and then gets all quiet when some nutjob kills him. What this kind of **** has lead to is pretty similar to all the militia bull**** that went on back in the 90's, the problem now is everyone has the internet, and 24 hour propaganda broadcasts masquerading as news.
Yes, let's conveniently point out one side's talking heads as if the other side's are quiet and non-existent. Well, actually, the Lefist talking heads are quiet compared to those on Fox, because they prefer subtlety when spreading emotional discord among our citizenry.

This is so idiotic! IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE BELONGS TO A SIDE OR NOT! THE SIDES ARE MEANINGLESS, ALL THEY DO IS DIVIDE US WHEN THERE ARE EASY POINTS FOR COMPROMISE!

Example:
Abortion
-Leftist View: Freedom of Choice
-Rightwing View: Sanctity of Life
-Point of Compromise: We need to reduce teen pregnancy.
-Solution: Comprehensive sexual education and access to birth control (and yes, I know plenty of Liberals AND Conservatives that agree with this).

It's not that hard for us to work together as Americans. Our Founding Fathers did it, so I'd say that it's good enough for us. Why are we letting the news media tell us otherwise?

Based on what exactly? If the authorities aren't yet clear about his motivations, where have you divined his influences from then? He could have easily been reading the huffpo for much of the last 10 years and decided the feds were getting out of control. I've yet to see the other side claim any responsibility for much of its own vile and negative rhetoric, nevermind what they accuse the tea partiers of doing.:raise:It's a populist movement with populist rhetoric that pulls at peoples emotions, no matter how uncouthly sensationalist it might be. It'd probably be accurate to say that most of its "grassroots" supporters don't really care about the philosophy or ideology behind the movement, but rather, the apparent meaning and charisma associated with it; "Taking the government back," and other messages can be co-opted by anyone for anything, no matter how disassociated it might be.

Yes, but the difference is that at this point, we don't have an itemized list of his positions on a great many issues. And as you've pointed out, a stance on a specific thing does not make them Liberal/Conservative. Again, I'm not saying he was either. People who know him better than we do have called him Liberal. He was an anarchist, Critical of religion, Includes in his favorite books "The Communist Manifesto" Now tell me how many people here who include those three fall on the right side of the fence?You forgot to mention that he admired Mein Kampf. However, unlike your Guevara-clad liberal narrative, I don't believe that the shooter adheres to any specific political spectrum, but instead might have been motivated by the rhetoric of the Tea Party movement, without identifying himself with it. He's simply co-opting the message to his own gains, without aligning himself with the message. So although the core philosophy of the Tea Party is not what is being debated as conducive to violence and radicalization, but rather, its own rhetoric.

Probably a stupid question, but why is this shooting automatically assumed to be politically motivated? Have they questioned the shooter? Is it possible that this guy was just a psychopathic killer just going on a spree in a busy area?

I'm only asking b/c I don't know all the details...

Okay, so it seems like it was a little bit of both (politically motivated/insanity). It's clear that this guy needed mental help.

This is a video compilation of Jared Lee Loughner's youtube videos that he posted. (it's a lot of reading) Quite scary stuff if you ask me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OaTLWLRTx0)

It's a populist movement with populist rhetoric that pulls at peoples emotions, no matter how uncouthly sensationalist it might be. It'd probably be accurate to say that most of its "grassroots" supporters don't really care about the philosophy or ideology behind the movement, but rather, the apparent meaning and charisma associated with it; "Taking the government back," and other messages can be co-opted by anyone for anything, no matter how disassociated it might be.

You forgot to mention that he admired Mein Kampf. However, unlike your Guevara-clad liberal narrative, I don't believe that the shooter adheres to any specific political spectrum, but instead might have been motivated by the rhetoric of the Tea Party movement, without identifying himself with it. He's simply co-opting the message to his own gains, without aligning himself with the message. So although the core philosophy of the Tea Party is not what is being debated as conducive to violence and radicalization, but rather, its own rhetoric.


Outside of a few cranks, I've yet to see the "tea party movement" advocate violent overthrow (unlike the anti-globalists, anarchists and other fringe movements) of the govt. Just as there may be hotheads found amongst that movement, they are also present in the progressive movement, which itself advocates violent revolution as a legitimate means to bring down what they see as an unjust government. It is a leftist populist movement which, in contrast to the "tea partiers" (and frankly sane Americans) holds to the misbegotten belief that the govt should provide all manner of benefits and assorted entitlements to the people. Sadly, there are many in this country that think that is a good idea.....an expansive federal govt that makes false promises of a cornucopia of wealth if the people would but submit to it. Modern day slavery. The idea that the US govt can/will take care of its citizens is about as believable as saying that the inner cities of America and the Indian reservation system (pre-casinos) are models of efficiency and material (nevermind spiritual) success.

Apparently this is another possible youtube channel by the shooter...a lot of his uploads and favorite videos are nonsense or unrelated...but there are a few thrown in there about politics (even one about Gabrielle Giffords) and another video favorited made by his other YouTube name ("classitup10").

http://www.youtube.com/user/bigjared420)

It becomes increasingly clear that this guy wasn't conforming to any sort of political group but rather acting upon his emotions and insane thoughts.

It's as if they are saying only the Right can have crazies.

You should come to Britain. Some elements of the left are chock full of crazy.

It seems to me, from an outsider's point of the view, in addition to the guys obvious mental deficit, that the extreme (to an outsider, at least) rhetoric of both sides of American politics are to blame for this - listening to some networks at times makes it sound as if the US is engaged in a pseudo civil war. Right or left, it doesn't seem surprising that someone started shooting. To an outsider, at least.

You forgot to mention that he admired Mein Kampf. However, unlike your Guevara-clad liberal narrative, I don't believe that the shooter adheres to any specific political spectrum, but instead might have been motivated by the rhetoric of the Tea Party movement, without identifying himself with it. He's simply co-opting the message to his own gains, without aligning himself with the message. So although the core philosophy of the Tea Party is not what is being debated as conducive to violence and radicalization, but rather, its own rhetoric.

And you have some proof that he even read Tea Party literature? All I get so far is him talking about creating his own currency, mind control(through grammar of all things), going back to the Gold standard, and a whole bunch of very random and disjointed thoughts intermingled with pseudo-intellectual nonsense. His comments, at least on his youtube page, seem to be at best the ramblings of a guy who smoked just a bit too many funny cigarettes. Nothing indicates he paid attention to either party. But you have been quite willing to make the leap to him somehow getting his target from the Tea Party.

I on the other hand do not ascribe his attack to either left or right. I chalk it up to a random nutjob who believed the government was an evil mind control agency and sadly for Giffords she represented that government to him. She just happened to be the closest to his house(within 5 miles). I mean seriously this guy was at best a tinfoil hat wearer.

going back to the Gold standard, That settles it, it is all Ron Paul’s fault. :xp:

I have little doubt that he had mental problems. However, it does not help that people, politicians and media talking heads are yelling at the top of their lungs that those on the other side of the political spectrum are evil and trying to destroy our way of life just because they disagree with that person. While a mentally staple person may see it for what it is, political rhetoric. Someone mentally unstable may consider it a call to action.

Someone mentally unstable may consider it a call to action.

I dunno, this guy may have been unstable enough to have found a call to action in Martha Stewart Living.

While that may be very true, it does not mean the next oil executive, doctor or politician that is shot in the head will not be caused by allowing this stupid rhetoric. I may not have agreed with President George Bush policies, or intelligence for that matter, but I do believe he thought he was doing what was in the best interest of this nation. However, people like Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly or Rush shout all over the airwaves that Obama’s and the Dem’s only goal is to destroy this nation (I’ll give Beck a pass because he seems just as mentally unstable as this guy). Don’t get me wrong, the left does it too, but they are nowhere near as popular as these talking heads or at least they put comedic spin on their views.

Sorry, but the freedom of the press allows those vitriolic b7's on the air in as much as the previous 8 years allowed the vitriolic spewing from the other side. Honestly just because Bill Mauer has a comedic tone does not mean that his hatefulness isn't spread. I don't really like how spite filled they are, but frankly it's not new. What we as a nation need to do is, like you and I do here, relax and realize the other side is not evil incarnate out to destroy everything we believe in. It doesn't help matters when people jump to the conclusion that a person MUST have been influenced by Palin/Rush/Savage/<Talking head of preference> every time some whack job goes out and does stupid and violent things.

And ya know what... Actual heart felt apologies might go a long way towards healing the rift. But I'm not expecting those to hit the airwaves any time soon.

Where did I say we should violate anyone's Freedom of Speech or Press? :rolleyes: Sorry did not read the rest as I could not get pass that.

Didn't say you did. Just stating the "problem" in trying to correct said talking heads.

Problem is that the 1st Amendment is actually there to protect divisive, offensive and often questionable speech. I'm going to guess that a lot of the public fallout from this is going to again be to villify certain povs and make tenuous (at best) links between what people say on air and the actions "unstable" people take. IIRC Rush et al were indirectly blamed by his detractors for the OK bombing for putting out too much "anti-govt" rhetoric. It is in some ways amazing that we want to whitewash words like n***** from Huck Finn, but want to be able to say it on air/in film/in music w/abandon (ie, it seems we're now somewhat schizo about the boundaries of free speech). By all current accounts, this guy was the lone wackjob that the SS and FBI dread having to deal with b/c they often strike w/o warning. It also appears that he had some kind of obsessive grudge vs Giffords for a perceived slight in the recent past.

Problem is that the 1st Amendment is actually there to protect divisive, offensive and often questionable speech. Why exactly is that a problem?

My problem with the political hacks has nothing to do with what they say beyond their resorting to name calling and outright lies without a thread of evidence. I just find it funny that we hold people like the Dixie Chicks, Dan Rather and Bill Maher responsible for saying something off the cuff (even when it is true or stated as an opinion), but others can say whatever they want and get away with it.

I guess it comes from rightwing hatemongering being more profitable than leftwing hatemongering. (please do not think I am putting the Dixie Chicks into the hatemongering level. The entire group was only persecuted because of Maines’ innocent opinion).

During President Bush's term there were a number on the left who used the medium of movies television and print ads who pushed the bounds as far or further than Rush. Some even having veiled recommendations for Bush's assassination(There was a movie regarding this). "Comedy" was used as a medium for some of the most vile insults. Heck one comedian even hoped for Rush to die. There is no reason that we should give them a pass for their brand of hatemongering because it is wrapped in a comedic routine. It's all entertainment. People like Rush, O'Reilley, Hannity, Savage et al are entertainment. They may not be your entertainment, but they are none the less. They are also listed as opinion from the start.

Quite frankly I'd give them more of a pass simply because you get exactly what you expect from them. Those who watch/listen to them are almost always already of the same opinion. But when watching regular TV shows, you get the agendas of the actors/producers/writers thrown in. The hidden hatemongering being more likely to get someone to act. Their hate is wrapped in a pretty package. Opinion shows are like the generic form of hate.

And you have some proof that he even read Tea Party literature? All I get so far is him talking about creating his own currency, mind control(through grammar of all things), going back to the Gold standard, and a whole bunch of very random and disjointed thoughts intermingled with pseudo-intellectual nonsense. His comments, at least on his youtube page, seem to be at best the ramblings of a guy who smoked just a bit too many funny cigarettes. Nothing indicates he paid attention to either party. But you have been quite willing to make the leap to him somehow getting his target from the Tea Party.And you have evidence to suggest otherwise? Did you even read my previous post? I do not accuse the Tea Party for supporting an inherently violent agenda, nor do I see the shooter supporting the Tea Party on any foundation; the guy, by any situation, probably interpreted rhetoric in his own, violent way.

And don't ask how/where he could have viewed Tea Party literature; any schizo watching Fox News could have interpreted the slightest hint of counter-administration monologuing as a call to action. The same can be said for any political pundit, but since the Tea Party is the most popular counter-political movement currently, that would obviously be the first source to suspect.

And you have evidence to suggest otherwise? Did you even read my previous post? I do not accuse the Tea Party for supporting an inherently violent agenda, nor do I see the shooter supporting the Tea Party on any foundation; the guy, by any situation, probably interpreted rhetoric in his own, violent way.

And don't ask how/where he could have viewed Tea Party literature; any schizo watching Fox News could have interpreted the slightest hint of counter-administration monologuing as a call to action. The same can be said for any political pundit, but since the Tea Party is the most popular counter-political movement currently, that would obviously be the first source to suspect.

Yeah, may as well ask me to prove there were no pink elephants on earth anywhere. You claim he saw Foxnews. I haven't seen any evidence to show that he has. For all we know he got his "hate" from the Colbert report. Heck it may have been from the many LIBERAL groups that also disliked Giffords for her strong support of the second Amendment, and border security. There is no evidence that he targeted her specifically because of anything the Tea Party did. The Director of the FBI is refusing to claim any motivation for the attack. I'm sticking with crazy guy went crazy and killed a bunch of innocent people who happened to be in the wrong place.

And you have evidence to suggest otherwise? Did you even read my previous post? I do not accuse the Tea Party for supporting an inherently violent agenda, nor do I see the shooter supporting the Tea Party on any foundation; the guy, by any situation, probably interpreted rhetoric in his own, violent way.

And don't ask how/where he could have viewed Tea Party literature; any schizo watching Fox News could have interpreted the slightest hint of counter-administration monologuing as a call to action. The same can be said for any political pundit, but since the Tea Party is the most popular counter-political movement currently, that would obviously be the first source to suspect.


So much for innocent until proven guilty. :xp: The fact is that YOU are insinuating that the Tea Party rhetoric is what influenced him, but have no evidence to back it up. That is so far proving to be an entirely unsupportable position in light of the facts about Loughner that are coming out. So, if I understand you corretly, it is NOT unfair to insinuate that islamic rhetoric had an undue influence on Maj Hasan and perhaps we should monitor islamic info sources more closely. Afterall, that's what all the libs were cautioning us against in the wake of the Fort Hood shooting. Guess when their favorite objects of hate are convenient scapegoats, such caution goes right out the proverbial window. Nice. :rolleyes:

Btw, has anyone seen the mug shot of this guy? Immediately reminded me of Uncle Fester from the '60s tv show Adam's Family. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20028069-504083.htmlhttp://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/assets_c/2011/01/Loughner-thumb-480x600.jpg) http://images.quizilla.com/S/snuffhouse/1086659937_saaafester.JPG)

Also, regarding poster in OP: http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647)
Seems like the Dems went there first several years back.
http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DLC-Targeting-map.gif)

@mim: I say problem b/c most of the so called "heated rhetoric/hate speech" is protected by the 1st Amendment. We really don't want to have committees deciding what we can and can not say b/c someone believes it might affect a crazy person. Self-restraint is all nice and fine, but I see no reason to force people to curb their speech b/c someone, somewhere is going to decide to be offended by it and label it "hateful". (btw, not making any claims about what you're saying one way or another, just spelling out my position).

Isn't it strange that the "Crosshairs" on Palin's sheet look less like gun sights and more like surveyor's crosshairs. Gun sights don't have the cross leaving the circle.

So much for innocent until proven guilty. :xp: The fact is that YOU are insinuating that the Tea Party rhetoric is what influenced him, but have no evidence to back it up.I am suggesting that there is a possible connection between the vandalism of Giffords' office earlier in the year, the mention of Giffords as a "target" for specific political pressure, and now the shooting, is a currently-valid theory for the shooter's motive. Any investigation which considers the string of incidents to be a pure coincidence isn't being productive whatsoever, even if it means deducing false leads from legitimate ones.

I'm not debating that the shooter had a particular, concrete motive to downplay his insanity, I am simply suggesting that his bizzaro world-lens might have been conducive to his violence being influenced by a rather populist political movement. Yes, it could be absolutely anything, but considering all of the evidence provided, to rule out that possibility would be foolhardy.

So, if I understand you corretly, it is NOT unfair to insinuate that islamic rhetoric had an undue influence on Maj Hasan and perhaps we should monitor islamic info sources more closely. Afterall, that's what all the libs were cautioning us against in the wake of the Fort Hood shooting.When testimony after documented testimony proved to be accurate, then maybe that was somewhat justified. Any investigation needs a variety of motives, even if they all turn out to be absolutely wrong in the end. Yeah, it often leads to unfair discrimination against a variety of attributes of any given person, but it's pretty damn unavoidable. When it feeds an entire profiling division on strictly narrow paradigms, then it's problematic.

@mim: I say problem b/c most of the so called "heated rhetoric/hate speech" is protected by the 1st Amendment. We really don't want to have committees deciding what we can and can not say b/c someone believes it might affect a crazy person. Self-restraint is all nice and fine, but I see no reason to force people to curb their speech b/c someone, somewhere is going to decide to be offended by it and label it "hateful". (btw, not making any claims about what you're saying one way or another, just spelling out my position).I say we should curb this type of speech because this type of name calling is better suited to 7 year olds. They should be attacking the message not just calling people names. Anyone with two brain cells together should want evidence and not the standard 3 year old “I’m rubber and your clue” argument, but I guess even stupid people need entertainment.

@PX--well, it's fair to say you're focusing excessively on only 1 potential source as being a primary motivator. Had you said they should look at ALL possible sources equally and not reject any potential one out-of-hand, you'd be on firmer ground. But, going by your poster pic and subsequent arguments, it's clear you are suggesting that the TP rhetoric is more than merely one possible source of influence. As to your second argument, isn't it interesting that many of the far-left loons posing as serious journalists and commentators have immediately seized on the current vacuum to put forth an unsubstaniated narrative to explain the pyscho's actions. Besides, you don't appear to be overly concerned about the narrow paradigm when it's the TP or other conservatives that are the focus of that kind of problematic analysis.

@mim: I agree that such language can be curbed, but see no need for it to be done by edict and not self-control (either on the left, right and anywhere inbetween). ;)

Pastsramix. That would hold more water if you didn't simply focus on the conservative aspects while ignoring his "Liberal" history. I mean it isn't like only Conservatives have been anti-government. Not to mention that as of late both sides have been very vitriolic.

I must say this was very interesting read on one side we have right arguing that he was left. On the other side we have the left arguing that he was right. Now for all that I care about he could be from the right or the left. I believe that he was neither though. My reason well I believe the guy was plain crazy. He just believe that he had to kill this person for some reason which is wrong. Now both of you may argue this over and over but what does that accomplish. I would say nothing would be accomplished except a waste of your time. The thing is that these people were kill by crazy man.


The saddest thing is that there was a 9 year old girl that is now died. I do not see any reason for the arguing over this. In this world all people have their faults some bigger than other and the biggest fault is that of taking a life. It is truly sad that people argue over issue like this. There is only one person to blame and that person is who fired the bullets.

If you believe I've been saying he's left you've missed a lot. I've been saying from the start that it's silly to put this on either party.

I must say this was very interesting read on one side we have right arguing that he was left. On the other side we have the left arguing that he was right. Now for all that I care about he could be from the right or the left. I believe that he was neither though. My reason well I believe the guy was plain crazy. He just believe that he had to kill this person for some reason which is wrong. Now both of you may argue this over and over but what does that accomplish. I would say nothing would be accomplished except a waste of your time. The thing is that these people were kill by crazy man.


The saddest thing is that there was a 9 year old girl that is now died. I do not see any reason for the arguing over this. In this world all people have their faults some bigger than other and the biggest fault is that of taking a life. It is truly sad that people argue over issue like this. There is only one person to blame and that person is who fired the bullets.
My friend, I may hardly ever agree with you on politics, but this post gets my 100% approval. :thmbup1:

The only thing this has shown me is that our country is even more messed up than I realized....why can't we just come together and just say he was an insane bad dude and leave it at that? Who cares whether he watched Glen Beck or Keith Olberman....I've never known someone to be motivated to kill after watching a punditry show. :raise:

Isn't it strange that the "Crosshairs" on Palin's sheet look less like gun sights and more like surveyor's crosshairs. Gun sights don't have the cross leaving the circle.
Your jesting talent is monstrously underrated.